I deliberately didn't comment until reading the report, which I now have.

The first thing to say is that there is practically nothing new in there. As someone who has read extensively on the subject of Hillsborough over the years, it's little more than a compilation of the facts that have already been established. The only watershed is that these facts have been given the highest profile publicity possible by being read out by the Prime Minister.

I'm surprised how much is being made of the supposed 'conspiracy' or cover-up. The process by which the police statements were finalised has been known for a good number of years. There is absolutely no question that anyone involved is guilty of 'perjury' or 'perverting the course of justice'. The fact is that the statements in question were never part of a criminal investigation and it is entirely understandable that SYP's solicitors should recommend a revision process for the statements. I have been involved in 'preparing' witness statements for submission to a court. I recently acted for an NHS trust in litigation against an IT disposal firm and suggested changes over about 30/40 drafts each from the first attempt of an account of the facts made by several senior NHS people involved, in order for our case to be made as we wanted it to be made. There is nothing about this that isn't entirely routine.

Anyway, even those who don't accept that there was nothing untoward about the revision of statements per se, can now have a look at exactly what type of amendments were made and should conclude that nothing substantial was hidden. Indeed, I struggle to see where the findings of the interim Taylor report differ significantly from the exalted version of 'the truth' we have today. I recommend that anybody who doubts my take on this episode reads Chapter 12 of the new report. It won't take long, and when you read it you will see there is absolutely no reason to suspect a grand establishment cover up that has hidden a smoking gun. You will see that the revisions were relatively minor, and are more to do with the tone of the narrative than the concealing of facts and were actually more driven by the solicitors (not improperly, in the circumstances) than the police.

The facts remain that this was a tragic accident caused by a perfect storm of contributing factors. Despite my distaste for Scousers (and the question of why so many of us do have a generally negative view of them is a question for another day), I don't think they had any qualities different to other clubs' fans in the 80s that contributed to the disaster. It could have happened to anyone in that era and it was sad but grimly inevitable that it took a large number of deaths to make everyone wake up to what now seems blindingly obvious with hindsight. This 'inevitiblity' and serious widespread deficiency in contemporary thinking and best practice are also precisely the reasons why no other verdict than 'accidental death' makes sense.

The really important thing following Hillsborough was that policing and other safety standards should undergo a revolution, and I think it's fair to say that happened and happened quickly. And I know it seems uncomfortable and maybe even insensitive to say this, but in the same way that police would never dream of policing a football match in that way again, football fans would not push and shove in an enclosed space today either. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Prufrock wrote:
Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

Hmmm, I'm really not sure how you can say the release of the latest report doesn't change our understanding of what happened in the immediate aftermath of Hillsborough and also, at various points in the last 23 years. Whilst the amending of the statements may be within the boundaries of accepted practice, and may not change the fundamental conclusions of where the blame lay for the disaster, surely the following points are extremely revealing in understanding the truth around the aftermath of the disaster and the information that was given to the public and the families of the bereaved:

1.) The process of how the information came out in the press i.e. knowingly false information supplied originally from SYP senior officers, through the SYP federation, supported by the involvement of a local MP, through a news agency and directly into the press. This information (urinating on the dead, fighting with officers trying to save lives etc.) was a clear attempt to mislead the public and protect the reputations of the police force.

2.) The inquest findings were based on a 3.15pm cut off time, and this has now been shown to have been an error, and with proper medical care upto 41 people may have lived. Any evidence after 3.15pm was not heard at the original inquest. So evidence such as the police were treating the incident as crowd disturbance, didn't allow ambulances onto the pitch etc. was not deemed relevant to the finding of cause of death to be Accidental death. Indeed two police officers have said publicly that they were forced to change their statements (which originally suggested that at least one victim was concious well after 3.15pm) after being harrassed by officers from West Midlands police, who were investigating the role of SYP, with the aim of ensuring that all cases "fitted" into the dead by 3.15pm version of events.

There is much more anecdotal evidence around from those involved at various points in this disaster that suggests there is a possibility of an extensive cover up, involving not just the SYP and WMP, but MPs, social services, and the legal profession. Look at http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/hi ... ntrol.shtm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for example. Whether or not you believe much of the anecdotal evidence, the two points mentioned above, alone, to me indicate that there is a very strong suspicion that there was a major cover up, and justifies a much closer examination of how senior people in various public organisations acted in the months following the disaster.

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
1.) The process of how the information came out in the press i.e. knowingly false information supplied originally from SYP senior officers, through the SYP federation, supported by the involvement of a local MP, through a news agency and directly into the press. This information (urinating on the dead, fighting with officers trying to save lives etc.) was a clear attempt to mislead the public and protect the reputations of the police force.

Ok, there is a bit more information about exactly who said what, when and to whom, but the picture of the kind of briefings that were given and the kind of people who were giving them was already pretty well known.

Which paragraphs of the report would you say highlight the passing on of 'knowingly false' information? There are references to things that were not well-substantiated and corroborated, passed on through Chinese whispers, and exaggerated and spun by the press, but I don't remember reading anything new about 'knowingly false' information.

In fact, reading that section of the new report has given me a new appreciation of how disgruntled amongst themselves many of the rank and file South Yorkshire Policemen were with some reports of what had happened and the interim Taylor Report.

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
2.) The inquest findings were based on a 3.15pm cut off time, and this has now been shown to have been an error, and with proper medical care upto 41 people may have lived. Any evidence after 3.15pm was not heard at the original inquest. So evidence such as the police were treating the incident as crowd disturbance, didn't allow ambulances onto the pitch etc. was not deemed relevant to the finding of cause of death to be Accidental death. Indeed two police officers have said publicly that they were forced to change their statements (which originally suggested that at least one victim was concious well after 3.15pm) after being harrassed by officers from West Midlands police, who were investigating the role of SYP, with the aim of ensuring that all cases "fitted" into the dead by 3.15pm version of events.

Again, I don't think this criticism of the 3.15pm cut-off time is anything new, other than the fact that the arguments are now collated with the Parliamentary Stationery Office stamp on them. The fact that Tony Bland made it to 1993 undermines most of the 15 minute arguments in a fairly obvious way.

I've always thought that the coroner's inquest did several things very badly and did a lot to fuel the bad feeling from the Hillsborough families. However, even if a lot of the hurt could have been avoided, I really do not see how any verdict other than accidental death was possible, even if that evidence should absolutely have been heard.

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:There is much more anecdotal evidence around from those involved at various points in this disaster that suggests there is a possibility of an extensive cover up, involving not just the SYP and WMP, but MPs, social services, and the legal profession. Look at http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/hi ... ntrol.shtm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for example. Whether or not you believe much of the anecdotal evidence, the two points mentioned above, alone, to me indicate that there is a very strong suspicion that there was a major cover up, and justifies a much closer examination of how senior people in various public organisations acted in the months following the disaster.

But what does an extensive cover up look like? What information do you think is not now in the public domain?

For me, a thorough reading of events reveals a picture of bad decisions, ad hoc arse-covering and an establishment that didn't much like working class Liverpool people, but I don't know what you mean when you say that the evidence points to a major cover up'. What is it you are saying that the Independent Panel has not addressed?

Prufrock wrote:
Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
Ok, there is a bit more information about exactly who said what, when and to whom, but the picture of the kind of briefings that were given and the kind of people who were giving them was already pretty well known.

Which paragraphs of the report would you say highlight the passing on of 'knowingly false' information? There are references to things that were not well-substantiated and corroborated, passed on through Chinese whispers, and exaggerated and spun by the press, but I don't remember reading anything new about 'knowingly false' information.

In fact, reading that section of the new report has given me a new appreciation of how disgruntled amongst themselves many of the rank and file South Yorkshire Policemen were with some reports of what had happened and the interim Taylor Report.

Well, the words "Knowingly false" aren't directly referred into the report, they are my words, but in chapter 12 there are numerous references to how SYP reacted to the findings of the Taylor report, about how the information behind the sun headlines was processed, and about how certain senior police figures were determined to change the public perception following the interim Taylor report.

From the report, it is stated in chapter 12, 2-12-69 to 2-12-73 that the panel started with the thought process of trying to substantiate allegations made against fans, but could not provide any evidence supporting the allegations. It suggests there was some verbal abuse of police officers by fans due to anger and frustration at what was (or wasn't) happening, but nothing to support urinating on the dead, sexual comments made about a dying female fan and other serious allegations. So was the information in these statements lies? However, it was these allegations that were reported in the press within a few days of the disaster. Moreover, the remainder of chapter 12 paints a picture of senior police officers, the SYP federation and Irvine Patnick being very keen to put out information the defends the police, that attempts to shift blame onto supporters. This information is generally repeating the initial statements around the misbehaviour of Liverpool fans. The CC of SYP, Mr Wright is quoted in the report as stating "a defence had to be prepared and a rock solid story presented". He didn't say words like the "Truth needs to come out".

Of course we already know that match commander Mr Duckenfield lied straight away about fans pushing the gate open, something that was mentioned in the initial Taylor report.

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
Again, I don't think this criticism of the 3.15pm cut-off time is anything new, other than the fact that the arguments are now collated with the Parliamentary Stationery Office stamp on them. The fact that Tony Bland made it to 1993 undermines most of the 15 minute arguments in a fairly obvious way.

I've always thought that the coroner's inquest did several things very badly and did a lot to fuel the bad feeling from the Hillsborough families. However, even if a lot of the hurt could have been avoided, I really do not see how any verdict other than accidental death was possible, even if that evidence should absolutely have been heard.

The significance of the 3.15 cut off time was that any evidence that occurred after 3.15 could not be presented at the inquest. Maybe this evidence would not have changed the verdicts, maybe it would have been found that the actions of the emergency services (the ambulance service also comes in for criticism in the report) prevented medical care taking place that would have saved some of the victims...which possibly leads to a verdict other than Accidental death. It looks very suspicious that the West Midlands Police put so much pressure on one female special constable that she was prepared to sign a statement that was completely different to her submitted statement just to escape the pressure she was being put under. Why did the WMP need to go to such lengths? Why were they so determined not to have any evidence presented that occurred after 3.15pm?

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
But what does an extensive cover up look like? What information do you think is not now in the public domain?

For me, a thorough reading of events reveals a picture of bad decisions, ad hoc arse-covering and an establishment that didn't much like working class Liverpool people, but I don't know what you mean when you say that the evidence points to a major cover up'. What is it you are saying that the Independent Panel has not addressed?

An extensive cover up may look like:

1.) False information supplied in officers statements immediately following the disaster.
2.) An organised attempt to control the information that the public heard following the disaster, one that shifted blame from the Police to the fans.
3.) Pressure from the investigating West Midlands Police force to at times change information in statements, and to control the actions of the families and survivors of the disaster, to ensure that the information presented at the inquests was controlled, to ensure the families didn't do anything serious like pursue their own legal challenges.
4.) A very quick visit from the home secretary to the law society in Liverpool resulting in a firm of solicitors being appointed to the families before their loved ones bodies had cooled down, and again ensuring minimum legal representation for the families at the inquests.
5.) A very strange second enquiry presided over by LJ Stuart Smith, which seemed to be very keen on finding nothing different from the original enquiry.

I could go on....read the Hillsborough website I linked. An extensive cover up could even represent senior members of the Thatcher Government, the WMP, the SYP, coroners, lawyers, press all conspiring to protect the reputations of the police (who after all in the eighties were almost a political force in themselves) and other public authorities, and move the blame onto those hooligan Liverpool fans, who were after Heysel the easiest of targets. We don't know, we need to know.

Also when you say "ad hoc arse-covering", and an "establishment that didn't much like working class Liverpool people", well when it is public authorities who working class Liverpool people, as anyone else, should be able to trust 100%, then that right there is an issue. This isn't covering your back in an insurance office. "Ad hoc arse-covering" by the police, is a cover up, no?

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:but in chapter 12 there are numerous references to how SYP reacted to the findings of the Taylor report, about how the information behind the sun headlines was processed, and about how certain senior police figures were determined to change the public perception following the interim Taylor report.

From the report, it is stated in chapter 12, 2-12-69 to 2-12-73 that the panel started with the thought process of trying to substantiate allegations made against fans, but could not provide any evidence supporting the allegations. It suggests there was some verbal abuse of police officers by fans due to anger and frustration at what was (or wasn't) happening, but nothing to support urinating on the dead, sexual comments made about a dying female fan and other serious allegations. So was the information in these statements lies? However, it was these allegations that were reported in the press within a few days of the disaster.

Well 2.12.66 mentions allegations of some instances against physical assault against police officers and gives a reference.

Nowhere does the report make references to a police officer (or politician) alleging that Liverpool fans urinated on the dead. In paragraph 2.12.71 the Panel reports that:

"Several statements referred to fans urinating at the rear of the stands rather than leaving via the stairs to use the toilets. [The example of a statement of a Hillsborough steward is referenced] One police officer alleged that fans had deliberately urinated on police officers."

Right, so it seems pretty clear that there were fans urinating in the stands and that that fact was horribly twisted an exaggerated by the press.

As for the sexual comments about a female fan, the Panel, at paragraph 2.12.104 reports that:

"Inspector Gordon Sykes stated that two quotes published in newspapers were from him. The first was ‘about the police horses and the supporters diving underneath the bellies and through the legs of horses’. The second was ‘when supporters were called into the Ground and were at the back of the terracing, then they all got booted out at the back’. Mr Sykes said that is when he was carrying a young girl out who was virtually dead. Her ‘T’ shirt had come over her head and her breast was hanging out, when some supporters shouted, ‘Throw her over here, let us ...’ and then added another obscenity."

At paragraph 2.12.170 the Panel reports that:

"Insp Sykes stated that he ‘wanted to protect the people I represent i.e. the federated ranks’ so that Mr Shersby could ‘put our point of view in Parliament’. He had been prevented from giving some of his evidence to LJ Taylor. He continued:
'When we were rescuing people, we cleared a passageway and took the injured and the dead away. Whilst I was there, there were three police officers trying to carry a young girl who was unconscious and had stopped breathing. They dragged her into the main concourse. Her T shirt came over her head and her breasts were exposed. Someone shouted: ‘Throw her up here. I’ll feck her’. When I came to that part of the evidence, I was told not to say that part, to go on about the rescue. It is that type
of thing that we should look to Michael Shersby to put a proper balance back into this Report.'"

Ok, it may be that you don't believe the evidence of the policeman, but when looking at a one-off incident like that, what other documentary evidence could the Panel find? In fact, I find the whole approach of "if it's not in a document it didn't happen" to be more than slightly unrealistic. Like the constantly repeated line that there is no evidence of widespread drunkeness. Well what would that evidence look like if it did exist?!

As I say, you read the report and a picture is painted of too much being made of individual statements - not of systematic and planned lying.

Well yes - I refer you to my original overarching point which you first took exception to, which is that the report tells us very little that is new and this supposed watershed is somewhat artificial.

bristol_Wanderer3 wrote:
An extensive cover up may look like:

1.) False information supplied in officers statements immediately following the disaster.
2.) An organised attempt to control the information that the public heard following the disaster, one that shifted blame from the Police to the fans.
3.) Pressure from the investigating West Midlands Police force to at times change information in statements, and to control the actions of the families and survivors of the disaster, to ensure that the information presented at the inquests was controlled, to ensure the families didn't do anything serious like pursue their own legal challenges.
4.) A very quick visit from the home secretary to the law society in Liverpool resulting in a firm of solicitors being appointed to the families before their loved ones bodies had cooled down, and again ensuring minimum legal representation for the families at the inquests.
5.) A very strange second enquiry presided over by LJ Stuart Smith, which seemed to be very keen on finding nothing different from the original enquiry.

I could go on....read the Hillsborough website I linked. An extensive cover up could even represent senior members of the Thatcher Government, the WMP, the SYP, coroners, lawyers, press all conspiring to protect the reputations of the police (who after all in the eighties were almost a political force in themselves) and other public authorities, and move the blame onto those hooligan Liverpool fans, who were after Heysel the easiest of targets. We don't know, we need to know.

Also when you say "ad hoc arse-covering", and an "establishment that didn't much like working class Liverpool people", well when it is public authorities who working class Liverpool people, as anyone else, should be able to trust 100%, then that right there is an issue. This isn't covering your back in an insurance office. "Ad hoc arse-covering" by the police, is a cover up, no?

I've read the Hillsborough website already. It's true that, with hindsight, the group representation of the victims' families didn't work well for them. Even the website concedes that this was as much about a novel form of group representation pushed by an 'ambulance chasing' law firm confusing bewildered bereaving families than it was to do with some kind of control mechanism from central government. I honestly believe that a great deal of the problems with the various legal processes are at least partly to do with the fact peacetime tragedies in which 94 people die on one day are mercifully rare, and the sheer volume of evidence and work was overwhelming for a lot of people involved, all of whom had never dealt with anything like it.

Anyway... my view is that it is a natural instinct to blame others when things go wrong. Nobody wants to accept, even to themselves, that they are responsible, even in part, for the death of another human being. Now, rightly, we have not allowed the police to shift their large share of the blame, especially at the very senior level, because it was crucial that lessons were learned and those mistakes not made again. It's right that this is where Taylor focused and that those lessons were learned. This doesn't mean that all those pre-revision statements that rank and file police officers made about an unruly mob that was hard to handle are to be discredited to the very last letter. It just isn't realistic.

Prufrock wrote:
Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
Nowhere does the report make references to a police officer (or politician) alleging that Liverpool fans urinated on the dead. In paragraph 2.12.71 the Panel reports that:

"Several statements referred to fans urinating at the rear of the stands rather than leaving via the stairs to use the toilets. [The example of a statement of a Hillsborough steward is referenced] One police officer alleged that fans had deliberately urinated on police officers."

Right, so it seems pretty clear that there were fans urinating in the stands and that that fact was horribly twisted an exaggerated by the press.

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

As I say, you read the report and a picture is painted of too much being made of individual statements - not of systematic and planned lying.

Section 2.12.99 states the following:

Some officers were injured and some stories were told to the Secretary [Middup] which were horrific. One story being that a policewoman who was giving resuscitation was urinated on. Other police officers were verbally abused and had stuff thrown at them and spat on. Some officers saw people picking coins up from the floor which had obviously come from the victims. Mr Middup said that was how it was portrayed to him that night by individuals under tremendous strain.

Section 2.12.106 of the report states the following:

PC Middup considered that there were two issues requiring clarification: 'they were that he was told the supporters were seen to be picking up items from the floor and the policewoman was urinated on'. Mr Booth 'stated that one of his men said he had witnessed people picking stuff up from the floor around the dead bodies'. (Name redacted) commented that other officers had been 'urinated on'.

The first sentence of section 2.12.65 reads:

In scrutinising disclosed documents the Panel sought evidence that would corroborate these allegations.

So I might have been more correct to say there were allegations of fans urinating on police officers who were tending to the dead bodies, rather than fans urinating on the dead, but I don't think that changes the point I was making; The authors of the report took the approach of looking to try and corroborate the allegations against the Liverpool in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. These include the urinating allegations, theft from dead bodies, sexual comments towards a dead Liverpool fan, fans spitting at police officers. They couldn't find any. The match was live on TV, there was CCTV. No evidence of fans urinating on anybody. It is pretty hard for there to be a grey area when making accusations of being urinated on. It was a sunny day, it wasn't raining. So if there was no evidence to support the urinating allegations, and remember the report paints a picture of a police force going to great lengths to remove blame from themselves onto fans, so they are hardy likely to be sitting on evidence of fans urinating on people and not producing it, then surely we have to assume that these statements are false, and in fact no urinating took place. I therefore standby my original comments. These statements, based on the information in this report, were extremely likely to be knowingly false.

Well yes - I refer you to my original overarching point which you first took exception to, which is that the report tells us very little that is new and this supposed watershed is somewhat artificial.In scrutinising disclosed documents the Panel sought evidence that would corroborate these allegations.

I made the point about Mr Duckenfield instinctively lying, to show that lying was perhaps in the culture of the police force. Just like he instinctively lied to defend himself, perhaps the police officers making statements instinctively lied also.

I still disagree with your overarching point:

This report does the following:

1.) It makes it public for the first time that a large number of statements were altered and mostly to show the police force in a better light.
2.) It shows the process of how the headlines disgracing Liverpool fans were produced and that there was indeed no evidence to support these headlines.
3.) It shows the thinking of senior police officers and MPs. It paints a picture of, how did you put it?...."ad hoc arse-covering" on a rather grand scale.
4.) It confirms, for the first time, that the 3.15 cut off time was incorrect, and that the verdicts were thus made on the wrong basis.

For most people who haven't taken more than a passing interest in Hillsborough these are major revelations and completely change the narrative about the whole disaster. I would have imagined a majority of people still thought that the fans were mostly to blame for the disaster until this report came out, and probably believed some of the headlines about the fans produced in the immediate aftermath. For the families of the dead, this report is hugely significant for obvious reasons. And it does provide the basis for further investigations, or re-investigations into cause of death, and corruption between local authorities involved in the disaster and the aftermath.

In your original post you mentioned you can't see why there is such attention paid to conspiracy theories and cover ups. From what we now know we have the following picture.

1.) Senior police officers lying within minutes of the disaster taking place.
2.) False information in police officers statements.
3.) MPs, Senior police officers, and the SYP federations collaborating with a press agency, resulting in the printing of allegations against fans in the national press that were never backed up with any evidence.
4.) A CCTV tape mysteriously disappearing.
5.) The involvement of a police force as an investigating force that were involved in a notoriously corrupt crime unit that had to be disbanded (I refer to the WMP, and the serious crime squad), including the appointment to the Hillsborough team of an officer (Stanley Beechey) who had been suspended pending his role in the serious crime squad.
6.) Police officers been put under huge pressure to change statements by the WMP.
7.) Due to changed versions of events, the imposition of the 3.15pm cut off time by a coroner working very closely with the WMP meaning huge amounts of evidence potentially damaging to the police not presented at the inquests.
8.) Poor legal representation for the families, and the legal representation they did receive imposed on them whilst they were unable to think straight in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
9.) A second inquiry in 1997 that, despite the original versions of the altered statements being available, could not use them due to the terms of reference of that enquiry, which basically could only consider completely new evidence.

If you, after having the best education possible, and someone who is potentially going to be involved deeply in the legal system in this country, can't see the possibility of a cover up there, then there isn't really much hope. I can only assume you so passionately want to believe that the system works, and doesn't do bad things, that you can't see the obvious.

The original statements, before any revisions, of the rank and file policemen all described a complete lack of police communication and leadership and an unruly, badly behaved mob (and let's not forget that the report mentions that potentially inflammatory allegations about the fans' conduct were removed too in many cases). I reckon all these ordinary policemen who criticised both their seniors and the fans and were censored in both directions probably had it about right first time.

The pissing fans point, in its perfect ridiculousness, is a great potted summary of much of the whole, sorry discussion. There were obviously fans urinating in the terraces - there are several contemporaneous statements from stewards and police saying so. There is then a hysterical female police officer who might have experienced a bit of splash below and in says so in an emotional statement. The gutter press then get hold of this one story and in a pattern of poor professional conduct that had taken place thousands of times before and thousands of times since, spun and exaggerated the story into a lie for sensational effect. Same thing with the 'coins'. It seems to me likely that some coins fell out of people's clothing on the day. It seems likely that somebody then, instinctively, picked them up. The truth of the matter is that it is not whether or not you think that these things happened that marks you out as a moron, it's whether or not you think it's important.

We'll never know for sure, because looking for 'evidence' and documentation on these points today is nothing but an elaborate charade. All there can be is eye-witness accounts from the two groups there - the fans and the police/stewards - there's nothing else. To state that there is no other evidence is to say the most obvious thing possible.

I can see blame everywhere and yet I'm the one wilfully closing my eyes to things? Ok. It's obvious that you've read the thing, so if you can read the same material as a grand cover up and web of fabrications then I'm not going to change your mind by offering my interpretation.

Prufrock wrote:
Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

I don't know why sensible people are playing out the charade that entertains the possibility of any of the police involved being convicted of a crime.

Prufrock wrote:
Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

I don't know why sensible people are playing out the charade that entertains the possibility of any of the police involved being convicted of a crime.

It was alleged around the time and has been hinted at in recent news stories, that the Press coverage (mainly the Suns) was as a result of senior Police officers peddling stories they knew to be untrue that shifted the blame onto the fans from their own organisation. Even before the alteration of statements (for whatever reason) - there could be a case for 'perverting the course of justice' - no?

"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

I don't know why sensible people are playing out the charade that entertains the possibility of any of the police involved being convicted of a crime.

It was alleged around the time and has been hinted at in recent news stories, that the Press coverage (mainly the Suns) was as a result of senior Police officers peddling stories they knew to be untrue that shifted the blame onto the fans from their own organisation. Even before the alteration of statements (for whatever reason) - there could be a case for 'perverting the course of justice' - no?

No. I don't think so.

For a start, the Taylor Inquiry was not a criminal investigation and none of the statements was taken under Criminal Justice Act rules and none of the evidence was sworn under oath.

And, at any rate, as I have discussed at some length above, not even the Hillsborough Independent Panel of Scousers report alleges that any police officer said things that were knowingly untrue, apart from Duckenfield's statement about the gates in the immediate aftermath.

Prufrock wrote:
Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

Watching the interviews on the subject on TV reference is only ever made to the "independent" enquiry. I have yet to see any presenter actually point out who headed the enquiry. There'd be a massive outcry were the tables turned.

Watching the interviews on the subject on TV reference is only ever made to the "independent" enquiry. I have yet to see any presenter actually point out who headed the enquiry. There'd be a massive outcry were the tables turned.

It is odd that the composition of the 'independent' panel has not attracted even the gentlest of comment.

As you say, the man who headed it signed the foreward as 'James Liverpool', for goodness' sake....

Then you've got Professor Phil Scraton, scouser and Liverpool fan who has spent most of his career in 'criminology' writing about Hillsborough. Over the years, RAWK has featured and archived his stuff extensively.

Peter Sissons... born and brought up in Liverpool.

Journalist and producer Katy Jones... not a Scouser, so this is promising, but no, wait - she worked at Granada in Liverpool for over a decade and was 'factual producer' of Jimmy McGovern’s Hillsborough documentary.

Then Raju Bhatt, one of the founding partners of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors in London, whose entire business is claims against the police and the state more generally. Not a scouser, but a career police basher.

And then a couple of civil servant stiffs who are experts in archiving and records, as well as, ok, an ex-policeman, not in England and Wales but Northern Ireland.

Prufrock wrote:
Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families